ANOTHER J&J BABY POWDER OVARIAN CANCER TRIAL

Johnson & Johnson is flying solo in their latest baby powder cancer trial underway in St. Louis City Circuit Court, in front of Judge Rex Burlison, who has refused the many attempt by J&J to dismiss, remove and simply evade another ovarian cancer trial linked to J&J’s baby powder. This time they’re standing alone, after co-defendant Imerys Talc settled claims with 22 plaintiffs right before the trial began. The US unit of French minerals company Imerys SA settled claims by women for at least $5 million, related to Imerys mined talc supplied to Johnson & Johnson for making baby powder that’s been linked to ovarian cancer in several previous trials across the country.

The question becomes, just when did J&J become aware of the many adverse events and dangers of using its baby focused Talcum Powder products that have also been used by millions of adults worldwide?

At the start of the trial, plaintiff trial attorney Mark Lanier told jurors about a study of infants who had been born dead. “They took biopsies and all of them had asbestos that had migrated from the womb across the placenta.”

Then Lanier showed the jury an internal J&J email where someone at the company recommended moving the product from the baby aisle or replacing talcum with corn starch.

Lanier has stated he’s uncovered stacks of new evidence showing J&J officials knew by the 1960s its baby powder was tainted with at least trace amounts of asbestos and hid the product’s cancer risks to protect its reputation.

Why would Johnson & Johnson be sending internal e-mails of this type, if there weren’t known risks associated with the talc products?

J&J USE OF FRONT COMPANIES AND LOBBYING GROUPS

With J&J at the helm, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), now the PCPC, formed a talc lobbyist group in response to the first epidemiologic studies that discovered an association between ovarian cancer and genital talc use in the early 1980s. J&J and Luzenac, now Imerys Talc, were the primary actors and contributors to the Talc Interested Party Task Force (TIPTF). J&J and Imerys coordinated all the activities of the talc lobbyist group in the District of Columbia.

The stated purpose of the TIPTF was to pool financial resources of primarily J&J and Imerys to collectively defend talc at all costs and prevent regulation of any type over the cosmetic ingredient. The talc lobbyist group hired scientists to perform biased talc safety research studies. Members of the lobbyist group edited research reports by scientists on their payroll prior to submitting them to governmental agencies. Furthermore, TIPTF members knowingly released false information about the safety of talc to the public and used political and economic influence on regulatory bodies to prevent any intervention.

PCPC coordinated the defense of talc and acted as a mouthpiece for TIPTF members, including J&J and Imerys. PCPC’s revenue is generated through a dues system based on its members’ annual sales. $76.5 billion in annual sales puts J&J in the top hundred of the highest grossing companies in the world, and the highest revenue generator in the PCPC. Consequently, the PCPC had an extremely vested interest in protecting J&J’s products and financial interests.

J&J SUPPRESSED ADVERSE FINDINGS ON TALC

According to scientific evidence, there have been studies showing a direct link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer that started emerging close to 50 years ago. How as this kept from public view? Starting in 1971, Dr. W.J. Henderson and other notable researchers in Cardiff, Wales conducted the first study that suggested an association between talc and ovarian cancer.

In 1982, the first epidemiological study on talc powder use in the female genital area emerged. This study found a 92 percent increased risk of developing ovarian cancer in women who reported genital talc use. Shortly after the study’s publication, Dr. Bruce Semple of J&J spoke with lead researcher Dr. Daniel Cramer. Dr. Cramer advised Dr. Semple that J&J needed to place a warning on its talcum powder products about ovarian cancer risks so that women could make informed decisions about their health. Since 1982, there have been more than 27 additional epidemiological studies indicating a significant link between talc and ovarian cancer.

In 1993, a U.S. National Toxicology Program published a study on the toxicity of non-asbestiform talc that determined that there was clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. Consequently. researchers concluded that talc was a carcinogen, with or without asbestos contamination. Then, in 1994, the Cancer Prevention Coalition notified J&J’s CEO that studies as far back as the 1960s “…show conclusively that the frequent use of talcum powder in the genital area poses a serious health risk of ovarian cancer.”

The coalition further indicated that 14,000 women die from ovarian cancer each year and that this type of cancer is very difficult to detect and has a low survival rate. The coalition begged the company to withdraw its talc products from the market or at least provide safety information.

Since then, the World Health Organization, the Canadian government, and various other cancer organizations have classified talc as a carcinogen.

The Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson Missouri Trial

The current case before Judge Burlison is at least the fifth ovarian cancer trial held in his court in the last two years. In previous trials, plaintiffs from across the country have been awarded substantial judgments totaling more than $300 million. One of the first talc trials resulted in a $72 million verdict for Jacqueline Fox, of Birmingham, AL which was vacated by a state appeals court last October, based on the US Supreme Court’s Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) v. Superior Court of California decision of June 2017 related to non-resident plaintiffs in state court actions.

This current case filed by Gail Ingham of O’Fallon, Mo. was removed to federal court last year by J&J, but US District Court Judge Stephen Limbaugh remanded it back to Judge Burlison’s court in July.

On May 15, 2018 Burlison told parties to get ready for trial and ruled that he would not sever, transfer or stay claims, finding sufficient contacts between Johnson & Johnson in Missouri to invoke a long arm statute.

WIDELY DIFFERENT VIEWS

Johnson & Johnson has defended lawsuits alleging its baby powder caused ovarian cancer in women in the past, as several trials across the country have linked their illnesses to exposure to asbestos in the company’s talc.

The talc cases which now number close to 10,000 in state and federal courts, with claims that the company sold talc in its iconic white Johnson’s Baby Powder bottles knowing it either caused ovarian cancer or was tainted with asbestos and failed to warn consumers to protect the brand.

A J&J representative, said in an emailed statement “The talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder does not contain asbestos or cause ovarian cancer and we will continue to defend the safety of our product,”

J&J FACING OVER 9,000 SUITS

Last month, jurors in California awarded a woman who said she routinely used talc on children and herself $25.7 million over her mesothelioma diagnosis. A South Carolina jury couldn’t reach a verdict on similar claims the same week as the California ruling.

Those decisions followed a New Jersey jury’s finding in April that J&J and a unit of talc supplier Imerys SA must pay $117 million to a banker who claimed his cancer was tied to baby powder use.

J&J still faces talc lawsuits by more than 9,000 plaintiffs, primarily focused on ovarian cancer, according to a May securities filing. That number has grown from 1,200 in 2016. An unknown number of consumers claim that J&J’s talc products caused mesothelioma. See J&J Talcum Powder MDL 2738 USDC New Jersey Briefcase.

WHEN AND WHAT DID J&J KNOW ABOUT TALC DANGERS?

In opening statements, Lanier said the “big fight” in the case was whether there’s asbestos in J&J’s talc products and whether J&J knew it and hid it.

He then offered that multiple studies by universities, companies, agencies and even J&J itself found asbestos in talc, but that J&J had “manipulated the science in more ways than I can count” to obscure the facts. The company was compelled to protect its baby powder brand as its “sacred cow,” based on the millions of dollars earned every year.

The women, whose jobs range from school bus driver to executive director of a job-retraining program, come from states across the country, such as Pennsylvania, California, Arizona and New York. Six of the women have died, so their families are pressing wrongful-death claims against J&J.

When Krystal Kim, one of the women suing, learned testing by her lawyers of the Johnson’s Baby Powder she used showed it was laced with asbestos, she felt sick. “I was scared and mad at the same time,” said Kim, a 52-year-old former computer consultant now battling ovarian cancer. “It certainly wasn’t what I expected to have in my house or to be putting on my body every day.”

Kim traveled to St. Louis for the trial and she’s banking on jurors holding J&J accountable for her cancer after hearing Lanier’s evidence. “I’m hoping this jury says no more little girls should be harmed by this powder,” she said. “I’m hoping it stops here.”

The trial is expected to last another week to 10 days and we will provide updates until a verdict is returned.

J&J NOT FARING WELL IN 2018 TRIAL VERDICTS AS PLAINTIFFS WIN AT TRIAL AGAIN

By Mark A. York (April 6, 2018)

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Johnson & Johnson was hit again in a courtroom. This time for $37 million in New Jersey state court, where a jury found that J&J’s talcum powder based products contain asbestos and caused the male plaintiff Stephen Lanzo to develop mesothelioma, a fatal cancer. The “talc” verdict occurred late Thursday, April 5, 2018 before Judge Ana C. Viscomi, who presides over the state’s centralized asbestos docket, closely followed the March 8th trial verdict against J&J for $35 million in the J&J Ethicon Pelvic Mesh trial, which found that J&J hid the dangers of its synthetic surgical mesh products. In the Lanzo talc trial, Johnson & Johnson and its talc supplier were found to have caused the plaintiff to develop mesothelioma, after using the pharmaceutical giant’s asbestos-containing talcum powder over several decades. The case docket entry is Lanzo v. Cyprus Amex Minerals Co, et al., Docket No. L00738516 in Middlesex County Superior Court, Judge Anna C. Viscomi.

Johnson & Johnson is facing hundreds of additional lawsuits in a federal multi-district litigation also in New Jersey, see Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder MDL 2738 (USDC New Jersey), this litigation is related primarily to the ovarian cancer claims brought by women across the country, who claim that J&J talcum powder products cause ovarian cancer, which combined with the emerging talc mesothelioma lawsuits, would open an entire new area of mass tort litigation for J&J and its affiliates to defend.

The Lanzo trial started on January 29th and was closely watched, as the first “talc” lawsuit to go to trial in Johnson & Johnson’s home state over allegations that talcum-based hygiene products like Baby Powder and Shower to Shower contained asbestos and that J&J failed to warn of the risk as well as hid data that showed asbestos was in its products. The asbestos allegations are now an evolving legal fight for J&J, as most prior litigation over its Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products were over claims that the products have caused ovarian cancer in women. Those five cases case have been in the Missouri and California state courts over the last 2 years, with plaintiffs winning all but one of the trials, see J&J Talcum Powder Litigation, Missouri State Court, St Louis County Docket.

J&J WON FIRST CALIFORNIA TALC MESO TRIAL

Of note, is the California court trial verdict from November 16, 2017 where J&J did win a victory in the first mesothelioma trial; where J&J and co-defendant Imerys Talc America successfully defended claims by plaintiff Tina Herford that J&J’s Baby Powder caused her to be stricken with mesothelioma, after 35 years of using their products daily..

The New Jersey trial was the first case that went to trial, where a male plaintiff has asserted cancer causing claims involving J&J’s talc products. Plaintiff Stephen Lanzo, 46, claimed that after using Johnson’s Baby Powder for decades and inhaling asbestos particles within the product, he developed mesothelioma. The primary claims against J&J and their talc supplier Imerys Talc America is that the companies knew their cosmetic talc products contained asbestos, but failed to warn consumers and intentionally suppressed scientific research that showed asbestos was contained within their talc based products.

Suppressing adverse research findings and manipulating science related to discoveries that Johnson & Johnson products pose significant health risks are cornerstones of most litigation against J&J and its various medical products divisions, often resulting in much higher verdicts based on the intentional failure to warn and failure to disclose the dangers to consumers. Often the trial data shows that J&J had been aware of many dangers, as far back as the middle 1970’s, and yet they went to extraordinary lengths to suppress this information from being released to the marketplace and consumers.

J&J and Imerys defended against Lanzo’s mesothelioma claims by asserting that the his condition was caused by of exposure to asbestos from other sources, and that the talc used in J&J’s products never contained asbestos. During the trail Mr. Lanzo’s trial counsel described in detail, as well as by showing documents obtained from J&J and other legally accepted science and research sources, that talc and asbestos occur naturally together, and that J&J knew as early as the 1970’s that their cosmetic talc products contained asbestos.

Efforts to conceal this fact included J&J’s having paid respected medical, science and other prominent industry researchers to write and publish articles and research papers mitigating the adverse findings posted in independent journals alleging that asbestos was found in talc products. Trial testimony also showed that J&J had made multiple and unsuccessful attempts to remove asbestos from their talc products, dating back to the 1970’s, yet at trial they claimed there was no asbestos risk in their talcum powder products. With one defining trial comment being “Why do you try so hard to get it out, it’s because it is there” which would seem to define plaintiff claims that J&J was aware of the risks long ago.

J&J was defended by the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP a highly respected and very aggressive defense firm, who are rather new to the J&J world of medical device litigation and were unsuccessful. They argued that any link between talc products and mesothelioma is based on the tried and sometimes untrue defense of faulty testing methods, and plaintiff claims of limited and outdated studies. Defense counsel even went so far as to state that Lanzo was exposed to asbestos in his childhood home and at school.

Defense claimed that J&J’s products never contained asbestos, and that they have performed careful testing to confirm that, which based on the jury verdict fell on deaf ears.

DOES J&J TALCUM POWDER CAUSE CANCER?

Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay nearly $1 billion in total damages after just five trials, alleging its baby powder is causing ovarian cancer, all jury verdicts have been in state courts in Missouri and California, see J&J Talc Trials St. Louis Missouri.

Talc, a mineral composed of magnesium, silicon, oxygen and hydrogen, is used extensively in cosmetics and personal care products. Women sometimes use talcum powder on their genital areas, sanitary napkins or diaphragms to absorb moisture and odor – contrary to the guidance of most physicians. (Asbestos, linked to lung cancer, was once an impurity in talc, but it has been banned for several decades.) J&J is notorious for using any means possible to influence scientific data and opinion,only as well as manipulating research reports and public media commentary by industry experts. The recent California trial showed payments made to previously perceived impartial Science Council members, who were declaring publicly that J&J talcum powder does not pose a cancer risk, the Los Angeles jury did not agree with J&J and other pro-talc defense team members, as over $300 million of the total $417 million judgment was for punitive damages, usually only awarded for intentional misconduct, see “New Evidence of Johnson & Johnson Bad Conduct Moved LA Jury to Award $417 Million Talc Verdict”.

SCIENCE SAYS TALC IS DANGEROUS

The debate over talc began decades ago. In the early 1970’s, scientists discovered talc particles in ovarian tumors. In 1982, Harvard researcher Daniel Cramer reported a link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. His study was followed by several more finding an increased risk of ovarian cancer among regular users of talcum powder. Cramer, who at one point advised J&J to put a warning on its products, has become a frequent expert witness for women suing the company. J&J ignored and suppressed Mr. Cramer’s attempts to show them the study data, then publicly declared this research as flawed, which J&J still continues to this day.

His studies and the many others that have found a relationship used a case-control approach. A group of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and a group without it were asked to recall their past diet and activities, and the results were then compared.

Critics say these kinds of studies have serious drawbacks, particularly “recall bias.” Women may forget what they did or, if diagnosed with cancer, might inadvertently overestimate their use of a suspect substance. People without a serious disease may be less motivated to remember details.

Three other studies – considered cohort studies – did not find any overall link. Unlike the case-control studies, these efforts began with a large group of women who did not have cancer and followed the progress of their health, with participants recording what they were doing in real time. The results of this approach, most scientists say, are stronger because they aren’t subject to the vagaries of memory.

One such study included more than 61,000 women followed for 12 years, as part of the National Institutes of Health’s well-respected Women’s Health Initiative.

WILL “MESOTHELIOMA TALC” BE THE NEW MASS TORT?

Two recent verdicts for asbestos contamination demonstrate the risk to cosmetic talc defendants. In October 2016, a Los Angeles County jury awarded $18M to Philip Depolian against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels finding it 30% responsible for his mesothelioma, due to his alleged exposure to various cosmetic talc products used at his father’s barbershops that contained asbestos. The jury apportioned liability against various cosmetic talc defendants that had settled and several other cosmetic talc product defendants that sold products including Old Spice, Clubman, Kings Men and Mennen Shave Talc.

In 2015, another Los Angeles jury awarded Judith Winkel $13M against Colgate-Palmolive for mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to talc in its baby powder. The jury rejected Colgate and its experts’ claims that the cosmetic talc at issue was not contaminated by asbestos and that the talc in question were non-fibrous “cleavage fragments” unlikely to be inhaled or embedded in the lungs. Although details of the trial are not readily verified, at least one report indicated that evidence presented at trial showed that the talc contained 20% asbestos fibers.

These cases are particularly important because the defendants were held responsible for cosmetic talc containing asbestos and for having caused mesothelioma and not ovarian cancer as in the J & J cases. Further, both juries found that the defendants acted with malice; however, the cases were confidentially settled before the respective punitive damage phases.

Who’s Liable if Industrial Talc Litigation Explodes

While the ovarian cancer cases have dominated the headlines, the cosmetic talc asbestos contamination cases may present the bigger risk to defendants and a much greater reward to plaintiff counsel. Thousands of companies used cosmetic talc in their products over the last hundred years. The entire population could claim exposure, especially to defendants that sold personal care products that could be ingested, inhaled or exposed via air-borne contact. The risk is that the cosmetic talc defendants become the defendant of last resort when a plaintiff has no other convincing credible sources of exposure to asbestos, especially when the original product source is now a bankrupt entity.

Science of Cosmetic Talc Claims: While it may be difficult to challenge long-established trigger approaches if a talc claim involves a claim of asbestos contamination, ovarian cancer talc claims may require a new look at trigger issues because the underlying science of how talc exposure may cause ovarian cancer is different from how asbestos inhalation damages the respiratory system. Having learned from previous trigger battles in asbestos, the insurers are likely to challenge the science that the first exposure to cosmetic talc causes injury that can be associated with the development of ovarian cancer and characterized as “bodily injury” as required in their policies. They may seek out scientific opinion that ovarian cancer caused by cosmetic talc is not progressive in nature, and thus not warranting the imposition of a continuous trigger. And, generally, the insurers will likely seek to limit the spread of potentially triggered policies to as few years as possible, and as close to the manifestation of the disease as possible.

Exceptional advancements in the science of diagnosing and predicting cancer in the last few years will provide plaintiffs, policyholders and insurers the opportunity to craft new trigger theories to their advantage and to circumvent past judicial decisions that were to their disadvantage. We have already seen the insurance industry using alleged advancements in asbestos science to attempt to limit the scope of historical “occurrence” policies. There is no insurance precedence with respect to trigger and talc ovarian cancer claims. Expect both sides to bring new experts and theories with respect to biologic and genomic issues, including molecular cancer experts opining about genetic alterations pre-existing before manifestation of a tumor. Resolution of these issues will be especially challenging because much less is known about females’ “defense systems” as opposed to airborne exposure through the lungs.

The science of ovarian cancer cosmetic talc claims is likely different from asbestos claims, but that will be a question for the experts and courts. Because plaintiffs will have an easy time in most cases demonstrating exposure to consumer products (e.g., for baby powder, theoretically from birth to present), both kinds of cosmetic talc claims generally would be linked together based on length and type of exposure.

Will “Talc Mesothelioma” be the next mass tort against Johnson & Johnson and its affiliates? Mass Tort Nexus will report on this as additional information becomes available.

>Federal Judge Dan Polster has ordered the start of formal settlement talks as the way to begin the Opiate Rx MDL 2804, he’s entered a settlement gag order and strongly suggesting the parties move ahead in this area or he will be forced “let both sides loose on each other and the government via wide open discovery” including access to the FDA and DEA files. The fate of multidistrict litigation over the opioid crisis now rests heavily with 18 plaintiff and defense counsel who’ve been tasked with negotiating a settlement in the historic case. The negotiators, chosen earlier this month, are from two camps: seven attorneys representing local governments that assert grievous financial harm from the opioid crisis, and 11 attorneys representing opioid manufacturers and distributors. Their assignment is daunting: broker a quick and meaningful deal that earmarks money for all parties who’ve been affected by the flood of opioids into the US marketplace over the last 15 years.

Johnson & Johnson Talc Use Will Kill Plaintiff Eventually Per Experts in NJ Talc Trial

>An occupational medicine expert told a New Jersey state court jury this week that a man alleging Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder contains asbestos faces a painful death from mesothelioma, and that the disease was caused by his daily use of J&J’s products. According to plaintiff expert occupational health M.D. Jacqueline Moline, of the Feinstein Institute of Medical Research testified on behalf of plaintiff Stephen Lanzo, to support his claim that J&J’s products, including its baby powder, contained the asbestos that caused his mesothelioma. Earlier this week, another plaintiff expert, William Longo, an electron microscopist told jurors Tuesday that he found asbestos in more than half of the 32 samples of Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products he had examined during a trial alleging that using J&J talc caused him to develop mesothelioma, In the trials fourth week, Mr. Longo was called to the stand as a materials science and electron microscopy expert to support plaintiff Stephen Longo’s claim that J&J is responsible for his mesothelioma, an asbestos-related disease that is fatal.

>Lynn Hartman, the woman who won a $28 million verdict in December 2017, in the first Philadelphia bellwether trial over injuries linked to the blood thinner Xarelto has argued the Pennsylvania judge Michael Erdos, who threw out her damages award ignored evidence that additional warnings would not have changed her doctor’s decision to prescribe the medication. In a January 9th hearing Judge Erdos ruled for defense on their Motion to Vacate the Judgment on various grounds, and during the same hearing the judge also ruled on plaintiff trial counsel trial misconduct matters, which resulted in various sanctions against certain members of Ms. Hartman’s trial team.

>Several New Jersey counties and unions have filed suits against OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma and other opioid manufacturers, distributors and retailers in New Jersey state courts, which is outside of the Federal MDL Opiate Prescription MDL 280, in the last 30 days, accusing Purdue of sparking the opioid epidemic with deceptive marketing practices that the others eventually adopted. The claims in NJ sate court appear to be a strategic move to provide local governmental entities with a home court advantage versus jumping into the every growing MDL 2804, where Judge Polster has already moved the parties into settlement talks. There are now many other counties and states that have decided to litigate opioid claims in their own state courts versus joining the masses in the federal MDL, how this plays out in the long run remains to be seen. Several county and state court suits originally placed in the Opiate MDL have already been remanded back to state courts by the federal court.

>A Johnson & Johnson unit on Tuesday urged the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to leave standing a recent decision jeopardizing thousands of pending lawsuits by rolling back the clock on when claims of abnormal breast growth allegedly linked to the antipsychotic drug Risperdal began to expire. The justices are weighing whether to hear an appeal of a November ruling from the state’s Superior Court finding that a two-year statute of limitations of Risperdal-related lawsuits, more than 6,600 of which are pending in Philadelphia County, should have started the Statute of Limitations clock, which if upholds the decisions, will cause the dismissal of many of the cases in the Phila court Risperdal docket. J&J has not fared well to date in the Risperdal cases, with verdicts against now reaching the hundreds of millions of dollars and a recent ruling that Punitive damages are now permitted for many cases. J&J’s Janssen R&D division is also facing thousands of suit in the Xarelto litigation also filed in the Phila Court of Common Pleas docket.

>A Pennsylvania appeals court on Tuesday rejected efforts by a Johnson & Johnson unit to challenge expert testimony relied on by jurors in finding that the antipsychotic drug Risperdal had caused a Maryland boy to grow female breast tissue. A three-judge Superior Court panel shot down arguments from Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. that Dr. Francesco DeLuca had improperly relied on an 8-year-old photograph to conclude that Nicholas Murray had been suffering from gynecomastia, or the abnormal growth of female breast tissue in males, at the time the drug was prescribed. However the Superior Court panel did rule that the Murray v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, case would go back to the trial court for further determination as to the jury award cap based on Maryland law, wher the plaintiff resides, and taking into account the recent Superior Court ruling that permits punitive damages in the Risperdal litigation. The Murray trial which was the third case to go to trial in the Risperdal mass tort docket in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff was initially awarded a $1.75 million verdict, which was later reduced by the trial court to $680,000, pursuant to the Maryland statute capping damages. The unanimous panel rejected defendant Janssen Pharmaceutical’s attempt to overturn the verdict and affirmed the trial judge’s decision to limit the jury award based on a Maryland law that caps noneconomic damages. However, citing its decision in a case last month that opened the doors for Risperdal plaintiffs to seek recovery of punitive damages, Judge John Bender remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether plaintiff Nicholas Murray, a Maryland resident, should be allowed to seek punitive damages in the case.

>Drug distributor Cardinal Health has exacerbated the opioid epidemic by filling suspicious drug orders and neglecting to alert the authorities about them, Kentucky’s attorney general claimed in a suit filed Monday in state court. Andy Beshear, lead plaintiff counsel claims Cardinal shipped massive opioid orders throughout Kentucky for years, that were unusually large, frequent and deviated from a past pattern, shunning its own data and “common sense” in favor of profits and market share. Beshear had previously sued McKesson Corp., who along with Cardinal and AmerisourceBergen, distributes 85 percent of the country’s prescription opiates, and are alleged to have engaged in an organized and boardroom acknowledged policy of not reporting massive opiate order increases or failing to accurately track the millions of opiate pills that made their way into so many small towns in the region of Kentucky, West Virginia and Ohio. How the drug distribution monitors at these companies couldn’t recognize that often 2 million plus opioid tablets were being shipped to towns that had populations of less than 2,000 remains as the big question, that nobody at these Fortune 50 companies will admit to or acknowledge was an issue. The lack of oversight and re[porting took place during the last 15 years of record breaking profits where billions of dollars in revenue were collected year in and year out by drug distribution companies.

>Federal Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer enterd CMO No. 13 on February 12, 2018 placing a stay on proceeding in MDL 2272, pending the outcome of the finalization of the settlement discussion and a full resolution of the Zimmer NexGen Knee litigation. Lead counsel in the Zimmer NexGen litigation on Feb. 6 told Judge Pallmeyer, that they have reached an agreement in principle that will potentially resolve all MDL cases and similar cases filed in state court as of Jan. 15, 2018. If approved, the settlement will end seven years of litigation, during which some 300 plaintiffs alleged the engineering changes that Zimmer made to allow a greater degree of flexibility in its NexGen components in fact caused greater stress on the knee implants. The NexGen high-flex components theoretically allow patients to bend their knees by 155 degrees, while standard NexGen components provide for up to 125 degrees of bending, according to the plaintiffs.

The Zimmer NexGen knee replacement system has been on the market, almost half a million people in the US alone have had Zimmer knee implants. However, the Zimmer knee replacement, namely the NexGen CR-Flex Porous Femoral component, has been linked to a variety of problems, from loosening of the implant to failure of the replacement knee, requiring revision surgery, as the plaintiffs in the MDL also allege.

The case is MDL 2272 Re: Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Products Liability Litigation, (MDL Docket No. 2272, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois)

Drug maker Auxilium won a defense verdict in their Testim product bellwether trial, where plaintiffs claimed it caused a heart attack in a verdict reached in the US District Court Northern District of Illinois, Judge Kennelly, in MDL 2545 Testosterone Replacement Therapy. (Testosterone Therapy MDL 2545 USDC ND Illinois)

Senator Bob Menendez judge declares a mistrial in New Jersey federal court trial, after a hung jury cannot agree unanimously on charges. Question is- Are the Senator and his doctor friend in Florida, just that-were they just friends or was there active bribery taking place?

Recent Case Updates:

At the close of arguments in the latest DePuy MDL 2244 trial on Monday November 13, 2017, six New York plaintiffs asked a Texas federal jury to hit Johnson & Johnson and it’s DePuy subsidiary, with at least a nine-figure punitive damages award. Attorneys asked that J&J and DePuy be punished for making and marketing their Pinnacle model hip implants, an alleged defective line of metal-on-metal hip implants, that have caused many thousands of injuries to unsuspecting patients. If this jury follows suit on prior Pinnacle bellwether jury awards, then J&J and DePuy should be ready for a massive verdict, as the last jury awarded California plaintiffs over one billion dollars in December 2016, sending a clear message that the company’s Pinnacle design and subsequent marketing policies have failed.

METALLSOIS DAMAGE

Closing arguments wrapped up on the two-month bellwether trial, where plaintiffs claimed they suffered “metallosis” which caused tissue damage and negative reactions to the Pinnacle Ultamet line of metal-on-metal hip implants made by J&J’s DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. unit. Depending on the jury verdict, perhaps J&J will consider coming to the settlement table if another massive verdict is awarded, or they may continue the aggressive “we’ve done no wrong stance” resulting in more plaintiff verdicts in the future..

Watson Pharma, Inc. and it’s parent Activis, Inc. were denied insurance coverage in a November 6, 2017 ruling by the California State Court of Appeals in the 2014 Declaratory Judgment action filed by Travelers Insurance in an Orange County, CA court where Travelers successfully asserted claims that they were not required to defend or indemnify Watson in the underlying opioid based litigation filed by Santa Clara and Orange County against opioid manufacturers, due to Watson’s “intentional bad conduct” in their business practices related to sales and marketing of it’s opioid products. The Appeals Court also excluded Watson’s coverage in a similar opioid lawsuit against them in a Chicago, Illinois federal case where the City of Chicago filed similar claims against Watson over opioid marketing abuses in 2014. Perhaps other insurance carrier will take notice and look closer at denying policy coverage for many other opioid manufacturers who have been sued across the country in cases with almost the exact claims as those alleged by Santa Clara County and the City of Chicago.

>NEW XARELTO TRIAL:

Former FDA Commissioner Testifies in Philadelphia Xarelto Trial-

“Xarelto Warnings Are Inadequate”

— Former head of the Food and Drug Administration, Commissioner David Kessler testified during the first state court trial in Philadelphia, telling the jury on Tuesday that “warning labels for the blood thinner Xarelto failed to provide adequate information to doctors and consumers about the risk of bleeding that some patients could face when using the drug”.

David Kessler, FDA Commissioner under President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton, told jurors that Bayer AG and Johnson & Johnson’s warning labels for the medication understated the risk of significant bleeding events that had been seen in television and print ads across the country for years, and failed to disclose the true risks associated with prescribing the blockbuster drug. This trial, expected to take six weeks, is the first state court bellwether trial for the blood thinner Xarelto, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the prior trials took place in federal courts in Louisiana and Mississippi where the defense prevailed in all 3 trials earlier this year. Those trials were all bellwether trials, as part of the Xarelto MDL 2592 in front of Judge Eldon Fallon, US District Court, ED Louisiana. Will the change of venue to Pennsylvania State Court have a different outcome than the three prior Xeralto trial losses?

Luzerne County in Northeast Pennsylvania has filed a federal RICO based lawsuit accusing pharmaceutical companies including Purdue, Pharma, Endo, Janssen and Teva of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by illegally marketing highly addictive painkillers that have contributed to a costly national opioid epidemic. The suit filed in US district Court of Pennsylvania by Luzerne County is one of many cases opioid drugmakers and distributors are facing as state and local governments seek to recoup costs they’ve incurred in the increased marketing and prescribing of opioid painkillers, and the resultant spikes in addiction and overdose.

OPIOID MARKETING ABUSES

“The manufacturers aggressively pushed highly addictive, dangerous opioids, falsely representing to doctors that patients would only rarely succumb to drug addiction,” the complaint, which was filed on Wednesday, said. “These pharmaceutical companies … turned patients into drug addicts for their own corporate profit.”
“The lawsuit accused the drugmakers of using false and deceptive marketing practices over the course of the last two decades, including pushing the opioid painkillers for treatment of chronic pain, to boost prescriptions for the drugs

COMMON CLAIMS AGAINST ALL OPIOiD MAKERS

Among the companies’ primary claims, cited by Luzerne county and others, evidence the manufacturers intentionally misled consumers, was that the drugs were not addictive when prescribed to treat legitimate pain. This is one of the key claims used by all parties filing suit against the opioid manufacturers, across the entire country.

Case heading is: Luzerne County v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., case number 3:17-cv-2043, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

In addition to the many counties and other communities from across the country that have filed lawsuits against opioid manufacturers in MDL 2802, set for a JPML consolidation hearing November 30, 2017 a new group of plaintiffs have joined the increasing pool of parties filing suit against Big Pharma opioid manufacturers and their distributors. Unions are now joining in the suits alleging that the business practices of the opioid makers and distributors caused catastrophic healthcare and related labor problems everywhere in the country over the last 15 years. Locals from the Electrical Workers; Commercial Food Service and Teamsters are now plaintiffs in the MDL 2804, which if approved at the upcoming JPML hearings in St Louis, will probably cause a flood of additional filings by unions across the country.

State attorneys general, a Native American tribe and individual consumers are among the ever increasing pool of plaintiffs who’ve brought lawsuits against drugmakers, pharmacies and distributors allegedly responsible for epidemic levels of opioid abuse. As word spreads among the network of local governments, and discussion take place about the municipal opioid lawsuits being filed, there will be a flood of new complaints filed, that will match or exceed the number of cases filed in the massive “Tobacco Litigation” which is quickly gaining comparison as the opioid case filings are looking to be comparable in size and probably exceed the tobacco litigation in damages.

Last week a California state court set aside a $417 million verdict awarded in August 2017, against Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit by a woman that claimed J&J’s talc-based product, Johnson’s Baby Powder caused her ovarian cancer after years of feminine hygiene use.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson entered a ruling that’s a further setback facing women and family members who accuse J&J of not warning consumers about the cancer risks of its talc-based products. There are now thousands of lawsuits filed against J&J over the claims that use of talc products leads to ovarian cancer, the cases are files in both state and federal venues across the country including the federal Multidistrict Litigation in J&J Talcum Powder MDL 2738 (USDC New Jersey) as well as thousands of Missouri State court cases, (see J&J Talc Cases in Missouri State Court), where plaintiffs have successfully obtained large verdicts against J&J over the last two years. A single talc verdict won in Missouri state court, was recently overturned based on the June 2017 US Supreme Court Plavix ruling, which defined a plaintiff’s residence as the jurisdictional guide to where state court cases can be filed.

There is another J&J talc related trial currently underway in front of Judge Edward Simpson, in the same LA County Court, where there plaintiff has alleged use of J&J’s talcum powder products caused her to contract Mesothelioma. This trial started October 19th after plaintiff Tina Herford’s first trial was declared a mistrial on October 6, 2017, when Ms. Herford made a statement on the witness stand related to “talc use and ovarian cancer” causing Judge Simpson to declare a mistrial and quickly move to get the new trial started within 10 days. The J&J California state court trials and others soon to follow across the country, will keep J&J defense counsel busy for the foreseeable future, as more and more of J&J’s behind the scenes manipulation of R&D, paid research papers and suppression of adverse scientific publications is now coming to light, with all this conduct being introduced as evidence in the trials.

Judge Nelson’s ruling followed the jury’s decision in August to hit J&J with the largest verdict to date in Talc litigation, awarding California resident Eva Echeverria $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages. This trial was fast-tracked due to Ms. Echeverria’s onset of stage 4 cancer and fears that she would not survive the wait for a trial set past August 2017.

Nelson reversed the jury verdict and granted J&J’s request for a new trial, ruling the August trial was underpinned by errors and insufficient evidence on both sides, culminating in excessive damages. The judge added that there also had been misconduct of the jury during the trial.

Mark Robinson, who represented the woman in her lawsuit, said he would file an appeal immediately, “We will continue to fight on behalf of all women who have been impacted by this dangerous product,” he stated.

J&J in a statement said it was pleased with the verdict, adding that it will continue to defend itself in additional trials. J&J said declarations by two jurors after the trial showed that three members of the 12-person jury who voted against finding the company liable were improperly excluded from determining damages.

J&J also stated that it faces lawsuits by 4,800 plaintiffs nationally asserting talc-related claims. Many of those cases are in California, where Echeverria’s case was the first to go to trial, and in the previously referenced Missouri court, where J&J has faced five trials, with very limited success.

The Missouri litigation led to four plaintiff verdicts against J&J in which juries issued verdicts totaling $307 million, with J&J only winning a defense verdict in a single trial.

Is Industrial Talc the next “major mass tort or MDL” to watch, now that talc litigation is becoming more common in Mass Torts? Major verdicts against cosmetic talc defendants, including Johnson & Johnson (“J & J”), suggest that talc litigation, at a minimum, is a potential major threat to talc defendants other than J&J, extending into more general product manufacturing sectors including the “personal care product” industry, see J&J MDL 2738 Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase. In 2016, J & J and other defendants suffered three large verdicts for exposure to its baby powder in St. Louis, Mo.: $72 million, $70 million and $55 million. All three verdicts, in a jurisdiction considered favorable to asbestos plaintiffs, included substantial punitive damages, see J&J Talc Cases In St Louis, MO State Court.

The plaintiffs in each of these cases alleged that exposure to talc contained in J&J’s baby powder caused them to contract ovarian cancer. Also in 2016, a Los Angeles jury awarded $18M to a plaintiff who sued a cosmetic talc defendant alleging exposure to cosmetic talc caused the plaintiff to contract mesothelioma.

Assuming talc litigation is not going away any time soon, several questions are raised. Are all talc claims the same? What is the relationship between talc and asbestos, if any? What defendants are at risk in the talc litigation? What are the insurance implications of talc claims, and are they alike or different from asbestos and other long-tail coverage claims?

Talc History

There are two types of talc: industrial talc which is used most frequently in rubber, plastics and ceramics; and cosmetic talc which is of a higher grade and is used in conjunction with products that involve direct human exposures such as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and food additives.

Talc manufacturers and companies that have incorporated talc into their products have been, and continue to be, sued. Industrial talc defendants have been involved in litigation for decades. In lawsuits involving industrial talc, plaintiffs generally allege that the talc is contaminated with asbestos. The injuries alleged are mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis. To date, there have been no claims against industrial talc defendants alleging that asbestos in the talc caused ovarian cancer. Industrial talc defendants have aggressively defended the cases and, although suffering some adverse verdicts, they won more cases than they have lost. However, will thousands of new industrial talc claims result in acceptance of litigation and pressure to settle as a suddenly arising “cost of doing business’, such as the view taken by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers who incorporate “litigation costs” into corporate filings and simply classify it as an expense of doing business?

Cosmetic talc cases fall into two distinct categories: 1) cosmetic talc alleged to cause ovarian cancer; and 2) cosmetic talc alleged to cause mesothelioma. The J & J verdicts were ovarian cancer cases. There was no claim that the talc was contaminated with asbestos.

While the J & J St. Louis verdicts received significant attention in the national media, cases alleging that asbestos-containing cosmetic talc caused an asbestos-related disease such mesothelioma have been percolating, and some recent notable verdicts have been obtained. In 2015, a Los Angeles jury awarded $13M to a woman who alleged talcum powder sold by Colgate-Palmolive was contaminated with asbestos causing her to contract mesothelioma. These cases, if they emerge as viable litigation, could make cosmetic talc defendants targets by substituting them for insolvent asbestos defendants and anyone else who may be named, which would present an extreme and unforeseen threat to cosmetic talc defendants and affiliated industry.

Cosmetic Talc Litigation – Ovarian Cancer

Cases alleging injury from cosmetic talc are relatively new, as best exemplified by the recent high-profile J & J verdicts. These cases did not depend on asbestos contamination, nor did they allege mesothelioma. Instead, they alleged that talc itself causes ovarian cancer. The ovarian cancer talc cases indeed represent an entirely new class of toxic product liability litigation. The approximately 14,000 ovarian cancer deaths a year, in conjunction with the widespread use of talc in everyday products such as baby powder, renders these cases a serious threat to certain defendants and their insurers.
According to the National Institute of Health, there are 22,280 new ovarian cancer diagnoses each year in the U.S. and 14,240 women die of the disease every year. This is seven times the number of annual mesothelioma diagnoses.

The American Cancer Society estimates that there are only 3,000 new mesothelioma diagnoses a year, with mesothelioma lawsuit filings being stable and not increasing. Like any other business, plaintiffs’ firms are always looking to maintain and grow revenue. Litigation against cosmetic talc defendants alleging ovarian cancer offers a way to substantially increase their bottom line. Indeed, “do you have ovarian cancer?” and “did you use talcum powder?” ads are commonplace on television.

Because everyone can credibly claim exposure to cosmetic talc, the primary issue that will be litigated is the science underlying the causal connection between talc exposure and ovarian cancer. While plaintiffs prevailed in the St. Louis actions, Imerys Talc and J & J persuaded a New Jersey trial court in 2016 to dismiss with prejudice two ovarian cancer cases after granting their motions to bar expert testimony due to inadequate science supporting their opinions. Apparently pressing their advantage, the defendants persuaded the federal talc MDL in New Jersey to conduct a “science day” in which the litigants would attempt to generally demonstrate that cosmetic talc does or does not cause ovarian cancer. The plaintiffs’ bar quickly responded with their own proposed “science day” in California state court, presumably where they perceive a jurisdictional advantage. The “science” of whether cosmetic talc causes ovarian cancer will be the field of battle on which the sustainability of these claims will live or die.

The sustainability of ovarian cancer talc cases will depend on how the courts resolve the science questions surrounding causation. This will depend in large part on the plaintiffs’ bar’s ability to persuade courts outside jurisdictions traditionally favorable to asbestos claimants of the merit of their claims.

Cosmetic Talc Cases Alleging Asbestos-Contamination

In addition to the emergence of ovarian cancer cases, cosmetic talc defendants are also at risk of becoming responsible for mesothelioma cases alleging that their products were contaminated with asbestos. If plaintiffs can meet their burden of proving asbestos contamination in their products, the issue of product identification will largely be moot due to the ubiquitous use of talc in everyday products to which any plaintiff can presumably credibly claim exposure.

Allegations of asbestos contamination in talc have a long and disputed history. The FDA launched an investigation in 2010 based on reports that talc from South Korea and China contained asbestos. After extensive testing of various U.S. consumer products, the FDA found no asbestos contamination in the products. However, it described its results as inconclusive and only “informative” because it was unable to secure samples from all of the common talc suppliers.

The issue of whether cosmetic talc is contaminated by asbestos is disputed by the plaintiffs’ bar. The cosmetic talc defendants present an attractive target, especially given the declining pool of solvent asbestos defendants. In addition, while mesothelioma case filings have been relatively flat, the expected decline of mesothelioma claims has failed to emerge.

If mesothelioma cases do trend upward, plaintiffs’ lawyers will have additional incentive to identify new solvent defendants to satisfy the potential liabilities. Cosmetic talc defendants, generally not burdened by years of asbestos liabilities, make attractive defendants. In addition, because the traditional asbestos defendants that used and sold asbestos products have gone bankrupt, plaintiffs’ lawyers have increasingly struggled to demonstrate proximate cause against individual defendants and have been forced to make ever-more tenuous arguments that even de minimus exposures to asbestos caused their clients’ mesothelioma. The widespread use of cosmetic talc overcomes most traditional product identification, proximate cause defenses. Instead, the principal issue becomes only whether a particular product was contaminated with asbestos.
The plaintiffs’ bar will attempt to meet its burden of demonstrating asbestos contamination in cosmetic talc by arguing that traditional testing methods are not precise enough to detect it at low levels and that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. In previous cases, plaintiffs have employed experts to challenge defendants that maintained talc samples. As these cases are being litigated in the same jurisdictions that handle most asbestos cases, these allegations will be difficult for defendants to rebut.

Notable Cosmetic Talc/Asbestos Contamination Verdicts

Two recent verdicts for asbestos contamination demonstrate the risk to cosmetic talc defendants. In October 2016, a Los Angeles County jury awarded $18M to Philip Depolian against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels finding it 30% responsible for his mesothelioma due to his alleged exposure to various cosmetic talc products used at his father’s barbershops that contained asbestos. The jury apportioned liability against various cosmetic talc defendants that had settled and several other cosmetic talc product defendants that sold products including Old Spice, Clubman, Kings Men and Mennen Shave Talc.

In 2015, another Los Angeles jury awarded Judith Winkel $13M against Colgate-Palmolive for mesothelioma allegedly caused by exposure to talc in its baby powder. The jury rejected Colgate and its experts’ claims that the cosmetic talc at issue was not contaminated by asbestos and that the talc in question were non-fibrous “cleavage fragments” unlikely to be inhaled or embedded in the lungs. Although details of the trial are not readily verified, at least one report indicated that evidence presented at trial showed that the talc contained 20% asbestos fibers.

These cases are particularly important because the defendants were held responsible for cosmetic talc containing asbestos and for having caused mesothelioma and not ovarian cancer as in the J & J cases. Further, both juries found that the defendants acted with malice. However, the cases were confidentially settled before the respective punitive damage phases.

Who’s Liable if Industrial Talc Litigation Explodes

While the ovarian cancer cases have dominated the headlines, the cosmetic talc asbestos contamination cases may present the bigger risk to defendants and a much greater reward to plaintiff counsel. Thousands of companies used cosmetic talc in their products over the last hundred years. The entire population could claim exposure, especially to defendants that sold personal care products that could be ingested, inhaled or exposed via air-borne contact. The risk is that the cosmetic talc defendants become the defendant of last resort when a plaintiff has no other convincing credible sources of exposure to asbestos, especially when the original product source is now a bankrupt entity.

Science of Cosmetic Talc Claims: While it may be difficult to challenge long-established trigger approaches if a talc claim involves a claim of asbestos contamination, ovarian cancer talc claims may require a new look at trigger issues because the underlying science of how talc exposure may cause ovarian cancer is different from how asbestos inhalation damages the respiratory system. Having learned from previous trigger battles in asbestos, the insurers are likely to challenge the science that the first exposure to cosmetic talc causes injury that can be associated with the development of ovarian cancer and characterized as “bodily injury” as required in their policies. They may seek out scientific opinion that ovarian cancer caused by cosmetic talc is not progressive in nature, and thus not warranting the imposition of a continuous trigger. And, generally, the insurers will likely seek to limit the spread of potentially triggered policies to as few years as possible, and as close to the manifestation of the disease as possible.

Exceptional advancements in the science of diagnosing and predicting cancer in just the last few years will provide plaintiffs, policyholders and insurers the opportunity to craft new trigger theories to their advantage and to circumvent past judicial decisions that were to their disadvantage. We have already seen the insurance industry using alleged advancements in asbestos science to attempt to limit the scope of historical “occurrence” policies. There is no insurance precedence with respect to trigger and talc ovarian cancer claims. Expect both sides to bring new experts and theories with respect to biologic and genomic issues, including molecular cancer experts opining about genetic alterations pre-existing before manifestation of a tumor. Resolution of these issues will be especially challenging because much less is known about females’ “defense systems” as opposed to airborne exposure through the lungs.

The science of ovarian cancer cosmetic talc claims is likely different from asbestos claims, but that will be a question for the experts and courts. Because plaintiffs will have an easy time in most cases demonstrating exposure to consumer products (e.g., for baby powder, theoretically from birth to present), both kinds of cosmetic talc claims generally would be linked together based on length and type of exposure. .

Hiding Data That Showed Potential Dangers: The standard complaints utilized in the St. Louis cases allege that J&J knew about the risks of ovarian cancer as early as 1971. The complaints allege that “nearly all” of 23 known epidemiologic studies on cosmetic talc reported an associated risk with ovarian cancer, and assert alleged instances in which J&J “knowingly released false information” about the safety of talc in coordination with the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association. Media reports suggest that, in post-trial interviews, jurors indicated that these allegations were part of the motivation for the large punitive damages award.

Question: Will industrial and cosmetic “personal care” products made with talcum powder and the emerging confirmed links to “asbestos” and “mesothelioma” become the new long term mass tort resulting in thousands of complaints against nontraditional and unsuspecting defendants? Such as the Los Angeles County, California Superior Court lawsuits where a 2015 “cosmetic talc” trial resulted in an $18 million verdict award based on “cosmetic talc exposure in a barbershop” against Old Spice, Clubman, Kings Men and Mennen Shave Talc,as well as a prior 2015 trial verdict of $13 million against Colgate-Palmolive for exposure to talc in its baby powder.

A St. Louis jury has awarded $4.1 million in damages to the widow of an electrician from Westfield, Wisconsin, who died of complications from mesothelioma, a deadly lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos.

Longtime electrician Keith Urbach died in 2012, about six months after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Jurors in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court returned their verdict Jan. 25 following a one-week trial and nine hours of deliberations. They found that The Okonite Company of Ramsey, New Jersey, was 5 percent liable for Mr. Urbach’s death. Trial testimony showed that he worked with a fixture wire manufactured by Okonite that contained asbestos.

Mr. Urbach worked as an electrician from 1963-2002 for several employers in Wisconsin and Illinois. His death so soon after diagnosis limited his attorneys’ ability to produce evidence of Mr. Urbach’s exposure to asbestos, although they were able to find co-workers who could testify that he had several possible sources of exposure, including through Okonite’s fixture wire, said Jay Stuemke, attorney for the family and a shareholder in Dallas-based Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett P.C.

Jurors determined that other companies were liable for the other 95 percent of his exposure. Notably, jurors assigned no responsibility to Urbach.

“Keith Urbach spent 40 years working hard to support his family, and it’s beyond tragic that his labors were repaid with an early and painful death,” Mr. Stuemke says. “He and Jean had looked forward to many more years enjoying their children and grandchildren, but that time was taken away from them by the unforgivable negligence of companies like Okonite.”

Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett is a nationally recognized trial law firm with a reputation for creative and aggressive representation of clients in a wide variety of catastrophic personal injury matters nationwide. For more information, visithttp://sgpblaw.com.

NEW YORK, NY — A $4 million verdict in favor of a man who was exposed to asbestos while working as an internal grinder at a tool plant will stand, according to a Nov. 24 ruling by the New York Supreme Court for Oneida County, the law firm of Belluck & Fox, LLP announced today.

Attorneys from Belluck & Fox, LLP represented the plaintiffs in the case, which focused on liability for Nicholas Dominick’s exposure to asbestos that caused him to develop mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer caused by asbestos exposure.

“Our client suffered greatly because of the presence of asbestos fibers in his workplace,” said Brittany Russell, the New York mesothelioma attorney who represented the plaintiff. “We are pleased for our client that the judge in this case properly upheld the jury’s verdict and substantial award of damages.”

Dominick worked as an internal grinder at the Chicago Pneumatic tool manufacturing plant from 1968 to 1973. During the course of his work there, Dominick was exposed to bags of asbestos and asbestos board supplied by Charles Millar Supply Co. The defendant, Pacemaker Steel & Piping Co., is Charles Millar’s successor in interest.

The jury in the case found Pacemaker 30 percent liable for the injuries Dominick suffered when he developed mesothelioma decades later due to his asbestos exposure at work. Jurors awarded the plaintiff $4 million.

Pacemaker asked the trial court to set aside the jury’s verdict or order a new trial on all issues. The trial court rejected that motion in its Nov. 24 order. The case is Dominick, et al. v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al., No. CA2014-000232 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oneida Cty.).

The court rejected Pacemaker’s argument that it should have been allowed to call eight co-worker witnesses, finding that testimony from all eight would have been cumulative. The court also rejected Pacemaker’s arguments regarding causation, ruling that testimony from the plaintiff’s expert witness “afforded a rational basis for the jury’s verdict.”

The court also upheld the jury’s allocation of fault and award of damages. “There was significant evidence in the record as to Plaintiff’s past and future pain and suffering due to his mesothelioma,” the court said.

Brittany Russell, the New York City asbestos exposure attorney who represented the plaintiff, said the decision serves as reminder of the importance of legal assistance in mesothelioma cases. “The outcome of this case emphasizes how critical it is for victims of mesothelioma and other diseases caused by asbestos exposure to seek well qualified legal counsel to pursue a claim against the responsible parties,” he said.